Document Type : Original Article
Authors
1 Department of Midwifery, Evidence‑Based Care Research Center, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences
2 Department of Reproductive Health, Nursing and Midwifery Care Research Center, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences
3 Nursing and Midwifery Care Research Center, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Midwifery screening is one of the duties of midwives according to national
guidelines. It is possible to increase midwives’ knowledge and practice through effective education.
The aim of this study was to compare the effect of standardized patient‑based education and feedback
lecture on midwives’ knowledge and practice in screening counseling for fetal malformations.
METHODS: This quasi‑experimental, two‑group study (standardized patient‑based training and
feedback lecture) was performed on 67 midwives (licensed by the office) in Mashhad in 2018.
Midwives’ knowledge and practice before and 2 weeks after training (a 4‑h training program)
were assessed by the Objective Structured Clinical Examination and a questionnaire. The data
were analyzed by the SPSS software version 16 using Mann–Whitney, Chi‑square, Wilcoxon and
independent t‑test while P < 0.05 considered as a significant level.
RESULTS: Before intervention, the total score of knowledge and practice showed no statistically
significant difference between the two groups (P > 0.05). After intervention, knowledge score
in feedback lecture group was statistically significantly higher than that of standard patient
group (P < 0.001). In addition, there was no statistically significant difference in performance scores
between the two groups after intervention (P = 0.761).
CONCLUSION: Both educational methods can increase midwives’ knowledge and practice in fetal
screening counseling. However, in raising midwives’ awareness, feedback lecture group was more
effective than standard patient group.
Keywords
- Soori H. Textbook of public health T, ministry of health and
medical education for research and technology. Iran J Med Educ
2013;2:67‑89.
2. Summers AM, Langlois S, Wyatt P, Wilson RD, Allen V, Blight C,
et al. Prenatal screening for fetal aneuploidy. J Obstetr Gynaecol
Canada 2007;29:146‑61. - 27. Ranjbar SF, Mousavi Nasab M. Comparison of the effect of two
traditional and integrated teaching methods on the level of
learning of drug ability by the first year students of Fatemeh
Nursing School of Shiraz University of medical sciences. Iran J
Med Educ 2003;3(1):35‑43
28. Rashidi Fakari FK, Mazloom SR, Khadivzadeh T, Tara M,
Akhlaghi F. Comparing the effect of traditional, web based and
simulation training on midwifery students’ clinical competence
in postpartum hemorrhage management. J Mazandaran Univer
Med Sci 2015;25:65‑77.
29. Ten Eyck RP, Tews M, Ballester JM. Improved medical student
satisfaction and test performance with a simulation‑based
emergency medicine curriculum: A randomized controlled trial.
Ann Emerg Med 2009;54:684‑91.
3. Styles Screening and Diagnosis of Fetal Abnormalities. Ministry
of Health and Medical Education; 2011. Available from: http//
www.googlecom/gws/rd/ss. [Last accessed on 2014 Oct 21].
4. Cunigham GF, Bloom SL, Hauth JC, RouseDJ, Spong CY. Williams
obstetrics 25thed. In: Golban Medical. Tehran: Ghazi Jahani
Publisher; 2018.
5. Lou S, Petersen OB, Jørgensen FS, Lund ICB, Kjaergaard S;
Danish Cytogenetic Central Registry Study Group, et al. National
screening guidelines and developments in prenatal diagnoses and
live births of Down syndrome in 1973‑2016 in Denmark. Acta
Obstet Gynecol Scand 2018;97:195‑203.
6. Rabiee M, Jouhari Z, Pirasteh A. Knowledge of prenatal
screening, down syndrome, amniocentesis, and related factors
among Iranian pregnant women: A cross‑sectional study. Int J
Community Based Nurs Midwifery 2019;7:150‑60.
7. SevenM, Akyüz A, Eroglu K, Daack‑Hirsch S, Skirton H. Women’s
knowledge and use of prenatal screening tests. J Clin Nurs
2017;26:1869‑77.
8. Kosec V, Zec I, Tislarić‑Medenjak D, Kuna K, Simundić AM,
Lajtman‑Krizaić M, et al. Pregnant women’s knowledge
and attitudes to prenatal screening for fetal chromosomal
abnormalities: Croatian multicentric survey. Coll Antropol
2013;37:483‑9.
9. Spencer K. Screening for Down syndrome. Scand J Clin Lab Invest
Suppl 2014;244:41‑7.
10. Gourounti K, Sandall J. Do pregnant women in Greece make
informed choices about antenatal screening for Down’s syndrome?
A questionnaire survey. Midwifery 2008;24:153‑62.
11. Kordi M, Riyazi S, Lotfalizade M, Shakeri MT, Suny HJ.
A comparison of face to face and group education on informed
choice and decisional conflict of pregnant women about screening
tests of fetal abnormalities. J Educ Health Promot 2018;7:6.
12. Foster J, Heath A. Midwifery and the development of
nursing capacity in the Dominican Republic: Caring, clinical
competence, and case management. J Midwifery Womens Health
2007;52:499‑504.
13. Farshbaf Khalili A, Shahnazi M, Hajizadeh K, Shekari Khaniani M.
Down syndrome screening methods in Iranian pregnant women.
J Caring Sci 2012;1:145‑51.
14. Mohamadirizi S, Kohan S, Shafei F, Mohamadirizi S. The
relationship between clinical competence and clinical
self‑efficacy among nursing and Midwifery students. Int J Pediatr
2015;2:1117‑23.
15. Saif A. Modern Educational Psychology: Psychology of Learning
and Instruction Book. Tehran, Iran: Doran Pub; 2015. p. 728.
16. Rutherford‑Hemming T, Alfes CM, Breymier TL. A systematic
review of the use of standardized patients as a simulation
modality in nursing education. Nurs Educ Perspect 2019;40:84‑90.
17. Reyhan F, Mete A, Celik N. Evaluating the views of midwifery
students about simulation education. Int J Caring Sci
2018;11:239‑45.
18. Jeffries PR, Swoboda S, Akintade B. Teaching and learning using
simulations. In: Teaching in Nursing: A Guide for Faculty. St
Louis (MO):Elsevier2016. p. 304‑23.
19. Zhang S, Soreide KK, Kelling SE, Bostwick JR. Quality assurance
processes for standardized patient programs. Curr Pharm Teach
Learn 2018;10:523‑8.
20. Speeney N, Kameg KM, Cline T, Szpak JL, Bagwell B. Impact
of a standardized patient simulation on undergraduate nursing
student knowledge and perceived competency of the care of
a patient diagnosed with schizophrenia. Arch Psychiatr Nurs
2018;32:845‑9.
21. Afrasiabifar A, Najafi Doulatabad S, Mosavi A. Comparing the
effect of feedback lecture and conventional lecture on the students’
learning and satisfaction to teach intensive nursing cares. J Nurs
Educ 2014;3:69‑78.
22. Styles Screening and Diagnosis of Fetal Abnormalities. Ministry
of Health and Medical Education. Available from: http//www.
googlecom/gws/rd/ss. [Last accessed on Oct21 2018.
23. Martin L, Hutton EK, Spelten ER, Gitsels‑van der Wal JT, van
Dulmen S. Midwives’ views on appropriate antenatal counselling
for congenital anomaly tests: do they match clients’ preferences?
Midwifery 2014;30:600‑9.
24. Tabatabaeian MK, Dadgar S, Esmaily H, Khadivzadeh T.
Comparison of the effects of simulation‑based training,
compilation training, and lectures on the cognitive skills of
midwives in the management of preeclampsia and eclampsia.
Iran J Obstetr Gynecol Infertil 2018;21:30‑9.
25. Naderi AB, Alirezaee N, Ghorbanzade K. Comparison of the Effect
of two Competency‑based and Traditional Teaching Methods
on Active Learning of Cognitive and Clinical Skills of Nursing
Students in ICU Ward; 2012.
26. Reynolds AA, Pereira‑Cavaleiro A, Ferreira‑Bastos L. Simulation
for teaching normal delivery and shoulder dystocia to midwives
in training. Educr Health 2010;23:405.
)